Email this article to a friend

In the aftermath of Jack Abramoff, a new clamor for clean money and clean elections can be heard nationwide. Finally, some legislators are offering more than cosmetic solutions.

In March, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced the Fair Elections Now Act. Modeled after existing election-financing systems in states like Arizona and Maine, the legislation outlines a new system for financing congressional campaigns with public funds. With a proposed $2.8 billion for each two-year election cycle, Durbin’s bill aims to reward candidates who spend time with their constituents, and not golfing or dining with deep-pocketed lobbyists. In the House, Reps. John Tierney (D-Mass.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) introduced a similar measure, the Clean Money Clean Elections Act (H.R. 3099), in January.

Using an array of slides, Durbin lunged into the statistics during his Senate speech introducing the legislation: 74 percent of all American voters support fair elections; in the last three election cycles, spending in Senate races has increased from approximately $300 million to more than $550 million; and only 0.25 percent of Americans contributed more than $200 in the 2006 elections.

Moreover, political TV advertising has skyrocketed from $995 million in 2002 to approximately $1.7 billion in the 2006 election cycle. Durbin fears that this “political money chase” undermines the democratic fabric of the United States.

“I used to say, ‘I don’t want a dime of federal taxpayer dollars going to some racist such as David Duke running for office,’” Durbin told his colleagues. “It was a pretty good response, but frankly, as I reflect on it now, it ignores the obvious. For every miscreant like David Duke, there are thousands of good men and women in both political parties who are forced into a system that is fundamentally corrupting.”

Durbin’s proposed legislation would allow candidates to raise “seed money”–up to $100 from individuals, but not political action committees, living in any state–to finance the startup costs of a campaign. The cap for seed money follows a set formula for every state: $75,000 + [$7,500 x (number of congressional districts minus 1)]. If a candidate exceeds this ceiling, they must refund the excess before they can qualify as a “Fair Elections” candidate.

Rather than focusing on large checks from special interest groups, Fair Elections candidates will have to procure thousands of $5 qualifying contributions (QCs) from their constituents. Determined on a state-to-state basis, the minimum number of QCs follows this equation: 2,000 + [500 x (number of congressional districts minus 1)]. Independent party candidates, however, must amass 150 percent of the QCs required of major party candidates.

Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of campaign-finance watchdog Public Campaign, argues that the Fair Elections Act will shift America’s political focus back to the public. “As we saw with the last elections, the voters are watching,” says Nyhart. “They want politicians who work for them, instead of the big check. And voters of ordinary means are more relevant in Durbin’s proposed system.”

At the same time, the Fair Elections Act is a voluntary program. As much as anyone might crusade for a universal application, the U.S. Constitution stands in the way. Vermont’s state legislature tried to impose strict limits for campaign fundraising in 1997. But last June the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that political contributions are a protected form of speech, meaning any limits imposed on them violate the First Amendment.

But if candidates are free to finance their campaigns with public or private dollars, how does the Fair Elections Act stop corruption? In order to compete with privately funded competitors, qualifying candidates are eligible for “fair fight funds,” up to 200 percent more than the general election allotment. The general elections allocation is based on another state-relative formula: $750,000 + [$150,000 x (number of congressional districts minus 1)].

Nyhart believes the Fair Elections Act will make privately funded campaigns obsolete. “From a voter’s perspective, I cannot imagine supporting a candidate who would rather pursue K Street dollars than spend time getting contributions from the average citizen,” Nyhart says. “It certainly questions one’s motivation and dedication. And in the end, the campaign dollars will match up anyway.”

The act already has strong outreach support within grassroots organizations. The nonpartisan advocacy group Common Cause, for example, started StopTheMoneyChase.org
for citizens to voice their support or simply learn more about the bill. Moreover, an independent poll by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research reports “a significant majority of voters, across party lines, support publicly funded elections.”

Despite this grassroots support, Nyhart worries that the act will have to overcome adversity before it passes. He estimates that it will go up for voting in the fall and that conservatives, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will mount a tireless defense to retain or increase their political purses–with special interests groups paving the way in dollar signs.

“In last year’s elections, we heard a lot of talk about corruption and external influence,” Nyhart says. “It’s slowed down since then, so to get the necessary votes [to pass the act], the political environment has to come full circle. But the unearthing of one scandal can make a year’s progress happen in several months.”

See why we’re re-inventing the In These Times magazine, and how you can be part of it.

I'm all for public financing.Two things to remember: 1) The process is voluntary. The hope is that it will be appealing enough to candidates that it will make them want to enroll and that otherwise highly qualified people who have until now refused to run because they don't wish to submit to the "rat race" aspects of seeking public office will be attracted; 2) individuals can still make contributions to their favored candidates, the max amount to be determined.Posted by whemmer on 2007-05-11 15:28:40

Money will never be out of politics. With the current election financing system, at least the public has the right to know who is giving to whom. I recently read a book written in 1946 about American politics. In it the author noted that state legislatures composed of lawyers means that the lawyer can set whatever fees he wants for his clients, much as can consultants. The author argued that respectable pay for legislators would mean that the fee-as-contribution system would be less essential.
In state and local elections, campaign contributions cannot fund living expenses. In so-called clean elections, that means a person who has a job with enough flexibility to campaign or enough of a savings account to live off during a campaign has a distinct advantage over a person who must pay for extra childcare to campaign and lose pay when campaigning because her job is only 9-5 with no flexiblity.
Developers, who already are given great influence with many city officials, find serving in office a boon to their business as they pass laws to exempt new construction from sales taxes and to fund developments with Tax Increment Financing.
I also agree with the comment above that the Supreme Court ruling giving free speech rights to financial contributions is a big problem.
All in all, though, I have seen too many candidates win without much money because they made the effort to run. I also have seen many people with money go nowhere because their messages did not resonate with voters.
Just as with the Help America Vote Act and other "solutions" to voting "problems," I'm not sure how problematic money in campaigns really is. I've heard examples of how reforms work, but when I research the claims, they don't hold up.Posted by SillyLeftist on 2007-04-30 10:57:55

The basic problem here is the Surpreme Court decision. The idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech is a sick joke. It's not free speech (in the egalitarian form as intended in the Constitution) when over 90% of the population can't meaningfully compete to make their finantial vioce heard. On the contrary, by not having the means to make 5 or even 6 figure donations, we are denied our right to speak.
That decision by the Court is helping drive our country into a new fuedal age.Posted by Strive to be Dust on 2007-04-27 02:53:14

I'd also like to see a series of televised symposia on major national issues, to which ANY presidential candidate is invited, regardless of some presumption of winability, which is now an artificial filter favoring those few who are allowed to join debates among presidential candidates.
That nonsense back in 1992, where Bush the Elder, Clinton the Convex, and the loudmouthed billionaire took part in the debates, was just ludicrous. Why did we need to hear from Ross Perot and not any other contenders? Because he was bucks-up? That was the basis of his presumption of winability, wasn't it? Whether they have a broad national standing or not, it would be more of a service to democratic ideals to let us also hear from Peace & Freedom, American Independents, the Libertarians, etc etc, if they want to field a candidate. Convene a panel on, say, immigration issues, or maybe the drug war, or the Middle East, whatever, and let us find out what each party's candidate has to say on the matter. Why not? If their message to the country is not well-received, that's their own lookout.
I read somewhere that the original "symposia", back in ancient Greece, included music and drinking along with philosophical conversation. It might be fun to get the candidates a little buzzed before the cameras light up, maybe we'd hear more about what they really think instead of the usual canned responses!
There's where the value that underlies public financing could also use some application, that of letting the electorate find out the breadth of programs ALL of the contending parties want to put forward. Not just letting them hear it, I mean actually helping them hear it.Posted by Kuya on 2007-04-27 00:08:59

A random drivers license number lottery should choose all elected officials. One term in any particular office and out you go. No one could do any worse than "professional" politicians and one term is not long enough to be bought by any special interest group. Unbiased, quick, cheap. No more political parties, no more wasted money on elections. Spend the money on education so kids won't want to be lawyers or politicians.Posted by texasindependent on 2007-04-26 21:30:56

Hi,y'all!
May I offer an option?
Candidates for office should not be allowed to spend in any election cycle, that is to say up to one year prior to the election, more than the sum of one year of the salary that office provides.PERIOD! To give the candidates the exposure they need, they should be allowed a page in the appropriate newspapers to state their positions;a practice done in the town where I live.I know this would hurt certain lower echelon positions, but can anyone actually name all of their city councilmen. Furthermore, does anyone even remember, why they voted for them other than the name sounded nice-- which is probably what most people do anyway.
Should an office require media exposure, there may be a televised debate on issues deemed pertinent. This coverage could be provided by local or network stations as is necessary. As well, in the case of a presidential debate, there should be more than the bare three debates now provided. A debate per major issue, one that allows,or forces as the case might be, the candidate to expound upon their views of said issue. Honestly,the 2004 debates were appalling. Poor Georgie Jr. doesn't work well away from the prompter and speechwriter. That could be an indication of his thought process, don't you think? I feel closer examination,scrutiny,deconstruction if you will, is needed far more than sloganeering.
Really, when one reaches the core of the matter, why would anyone on either side raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays only four hundred thousand dollars per annum if there were not many, many strings attached and subsequent favors to repay?
One more thing. If ANY church or religious figure so much as hints at what candidate a churchmember should choose, they should immediately lose their non- taxable status. Tell Pat Robertson to keep his beak firmly shut.
Just some musings.
Ta-Ta!Posted by Aunty Rightwing on 2007-04-25 20:22:28

The campaigns are very corrupt but I
don't see govt financing as the panacea
either. Can see free speech issues arising
here and also it takes an enormous amount
of money to defeat an incumbent. Webb's
great victory over Allen in neighboring Virginia
would not have been possible without tons of
money. His ads were seen at the time here in
Maryland because he bought time on the DC
stations.Posted by bostonblackie on 2007-04-25 11:37:00

Public financing of elections is something that is long overdue. Entire books can be written about the corrupting influence of money and the political advantages that money buys.Posted by lams712 on 2007-04-25 08:41:24